Drink Driving Causing Death. It's murder, so why don't we do this here?

[scumdog]

The designed purpose of a gun is to kill things.

The designed purpose of a car is to transport things.

And the sad thing is these cars that are not intended to be killing devices do just that so many more times than the guns which some claim are only there to kill things...

[jrandom]

And the sad thing is these cars that are not intended to be killing devices do just that so many more times than the guns which some claim are only there to kill things...

Too true.

If we could ban cars from the road entirely, and move ourselves on two wheels and our freight by train, I wouldn't be crying myself to sleep.

In fact, as of a couple weeks ago, I no longer own a car, and have no plans on changing that. Cars are, in multiple ways, a social evil.

But I'm still uncomfortable about the crime of 'murder' applying to driving causing death where the driver didn't intend to (and would have preferred not to) kill. The distinction between murder and manslaughter needs to be retained for situations like that, IMHO.

But, right now, we lock vicious murderers up for something under 20 years, and people convicted of manslaughter away for, realistically, up to 4 or 5. I see no reason not to double those figures.

[Mikkel]

Nice arguments Mikkel but you are mixing complex social issues (Prohibition) with a simple social harm - drunk/drugged drivers. The community in virtually every nation in the world has already accepted intoxicated driving is unlawful. So that argument is already finished. All that differs is the level of tolerance.

Removing the doubt of how much you can "safely" drink is rational. In District courts the length of the nation you will hear people saying "I only had 1/2/3 etc drinks" as they plead guilty. Far far simpler to have zero level.

Yes, but you and I both know that we can easily have two beers and operate a motorvehicle with a reasonable level of competence. A law that flies in the face of that fact is begging to be broken - just like the speed limit in some places.

As you say intoxicated driving is unlawful - beyond the limit, not within the limit. As such it is not a case of zero tolerance. If NZ should do anything it would be to lower the limit to 0.5% blood alcohol and then stop being fucking pussies about enforcing the penalties. Something is not working properly when a person can have 8 charges of driving while disqualified and 5 charges of drink driving to their name...

Setting the limit to 0.0% is prohibition and will not work - because prohibition never does.

We can't have variable laws - too uncertain eg. you can ride faster than me cos you are younger, or bike is safer etc. Unenforceable.

I agree and I didn't call for anything like that. I just noted it as part of the "this is not a black & white world" argument.

If you read my posts I'm sure you'll find that I have expressed great disregard for unenforceable legislation.

And the sad thing is these cars that are not intended to be killing devices do just that so many more times than the guns which some claim are only there to kill things...

Well, that's because we are lucky enough to live in a nice, calm and sheltered corner of the world. If you bemoan that fact I think you'll find Dafur or Afghanistan a bit more to your liking.

[Winston001]

Just as a matter of general interest, the average world tolerance appears to be about 0.05 (250mg). A number of countries (in Africa) have no stated limit so they rely on laws we used to have - general signs of intoxication, walk the line etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving..._the_influence

[Winston001]

Yes, but you and I both know that we can easily have two beers and operate a motorvehicle with a reasonable level of competence. A law that flies in the face of that fact is begging to be broken - just like the speed limit in some places.

As you say intoxicated driving is unlawful - beyond the limit, not within the limit. As such it is not a case of zero tolerance. If NZ should do anything it would be to lower the limit to 0.5% blood alcohol and then stop being fucking pussies about enforcing the penalties. Something is not working properly when a person can have 8 charges of driving while disqualified and 5 charges of drink driving to their name...

Setting the limit to 0.0% is prohibition and will not work - because prohibition never does.

Au contraire prohibition does work. You aren't allowed to commit burglary, assault, murder etc, those who do are condemned by society. Yet thousands of years ago, such deeds were accepted as part of life - the strong ruled. No more.

I do agree about penalties, they need to be stronger.

And just because a law might for you and me beg to be broken, there are thousands of others who obey it at the same moment. Social acceptance of the law is essential and thats one of the reasons making marijuana illegal ain't working. Not that I'm keen on it these days, my views have changed.

[McJim]

Not that I'm keen on it these days, my views have changed.

*cough* *cough* ya dude, I hear ya....pass the spliff..

[piston broke]

i must have been guilty of driving,riding over the limit at least 100 times by now.
sad but true.
when i started driving 25+ years ago it wasn't really an issue.
i would say more of the crashes i have had were when i was sober by large %
not to say i was right to be drunk behind the bars or wheel.
sadly i have spent many of 100's of k's driving when i probably shouldn't have.
but i've never,had a crash where i have hurt anyone other than me.
in my real young days, i nearly got home once but hit a powerpole going into my folks place,i couldn't pick the bike up as the engine was against the post,i eventually passed out tryin to lift it with my folks watchin me.sadly the cops didn't go past and see me and kick my arse

ed i'm a bit wiser now and don't drive,ride after more than 3 beers in as many hrs,i hope thats reasonable

[Mikkel]

Au contraire prohibition does work. You aren't allowed to commit burglary, assault, murder etc, those who do are condemned by society. Yet thousands of years ago, such deeds were accepted as part of life - the strong ruled. No more.

Outlawing willful behaviour that causes injury or loss to another individual is the very basis for having laws.

You are, I believe, now trolling. You know full well that by prohibition is implied the outlawing of a practice that in and of itself does not cause injury or loss to anyone else. It may be a practice that to some extent is perceived to increase the likelihood of accidental causing injury or loss, but then we are again back at intent versus accident.

And just because a law might for you and me beg to be broken, there are thousands of others who obey it at the same moment. Social acceptance of the law is essential and thats one of the reasons making marijuana illegal ain't working. Not that I'm keen on it these days, my views have changed.

Now, with fear of getting off-topic, this is a subject of real interest to me.

I think that the introduction of silly laws that can not be enforced even if they ought to is causing irreperable damage simply based upon the fact that the public looses faith in the law community.
Just like you and I loose respect for a cop who gives you a bogus ticket on one of his bad days and are left with a feeling of why aren't they out fighting real crime, etc.

Every time you break the law, no matter how minor the offense, and realise that you are not a bad person for doing so nor are you actually causing any hurt or loss to anyone else, each and every time you will loose a little bit of respect for the law. When all respect for the law has been erroded away (probably no later than the age of 20 and most likely long before that unless you've lead a priviledged life) you are effectively down to your morals and whatever fear you may have of lawful repercussions invoked by your behaviour.

[RocKai]

Everytime you break the law, while drink driving is of course serious. Hey, but what about "Sleep and drive"??? Has anyone debated about that yet? It's as bloody dangerous as drink and drive. Should that be put under murder charge as well? I don't think so. You don't choose to be tired and sleepy when you get behind the wheel, as well as it's not against the law like drunk and drive, and you might think that you could get across town like that. And what is the maximum term for manslaughter while driving anyway?

[Genestho]

Everytime you break the law, while drink driving is of course serious. Hey, but what about "Sleep and drive"??? Has anyone debated about that yet? It's as bloody dangerous as drink and drive. Should that be put under murder charge as well? I don't think so. You don't choose to be tired and sleepy when you get behind the wheel, as well as it's not against the law like drunk and drive, and you might think that you could get across town like that. And what is the maximum term for manslaughter while driving anyway?

"Quite often" a drunk driver falls asleep at the wheel, I don't have the figures for that, although I'm sure I can find them fairly easily....

I know the guy that killed my hubby and mates, was asleep when he knocked them down like skittles, although very drunk and 4 priors.
He never woke to see the carnage he had caused to four families...
Lord knows what wet bus ticket he would've been slapped with but we don't have to concern ourselves with that..

IMHO..When you fall sleep at the wheel you're not ingesting something that will cause you to fall asleep.
There is another distinction there, although in saying that..
I also believe that falling asleep at the wheel minus ingested substances is preventable...

[Lissa]

The problem in this country is the way we are drinking and the social part alcohol plays in our lives (sounds like an ad!). But people who repeatedly drink and drive are the most self-destructive people who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.

Alcohol can change people, some people become more violent and aggressive, and some choose to drink and drive. There are alot of ways that Alcohol can lead to accidents, domestic and physical abuse and murder.

I know of a man who lived a one minute walk from a pub, just around a corner who was too friggin lazy to walk, so he drove drunk out of the car park and hit a bus. That could easily have been a tragic accident had it been a motorbike or a small car he had hit.

If people drink and drive they shouldnt even be allowed to own a vehicle, as they are incapable of being able to control themselves. They make me sick. Getting into a vehicle drunk and killing someone should be classed as murder. Life is full of choices and life is so precious why destroy someones life by your own selfishness all because they want a drink.

[Winston001]

....And what is the maximum term for manslaughter while driving anyway?

Life imprisonment.

Outlawing willful behaviour that causes injury or loss to another individual is the very basis for having laws.

You are, I believe, now trolling....


Now, with fear of getting off-topic, this is a subject of real interest to me.

I think that the introduction of silly laws that can not be enforced even if they ought to is causing irreparable damage ..........When all respect for the law has been erroded away you are effectively down to your morals and whatever fear you may have of lawful repercussions invoked by your behaviour.

Not deliberately trolling, just like arguing - for the full half hour. EBA law deals with wilful behaviour that causes injury/loss/tragedy. Granted, the behaviour doesn't always lead to this but society has decided the risk is high. All thats left to debate is where the line is drawn - 400mg or zero.

I say zero for the sake of simplicity and to avoid people thinking they can risk a certain number of drinks. You say 250mg and it looks like a lot of other countries agree with you. Fair enough. Wrong but ok.......

As to the philosophy of law - jurisprudence, here is a link http://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=e...cyok#PPA248,M1

[Usarka]

If people drink and drive they shouldnt even be allowed to own a vehicle, as they are incapable of being able to control themselves. They make me sick. Getting into a vehicle drunk and killing someone should be classed as murder. Life is full of choices and life is so precious why destroy someones life by your own selfishness all because they want a drink.

So if people speed and drive they are incapable of being able to control themselves and also should be done for murder if they kill someone....?

The current penalties seem indicate that these two acts as of similar seriousness, and this probably reflects the "majority" view of NZ, so lets hit both of them up.

[Mikkel]

self-destructive people who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.

Erhm, that's a contradiction I think

Wrong but ok.......

Am not, you are fuhle!

Nothing quite like being the devil's advocate is there?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Not deliberately trolling, just like arguing - for the full half hour.

No you don't.